dream_weaver

It would seem you are attempting to apply rights beyond the scope they can be validated for. A "right," in Ayn Rand's definition, "is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." To apply it to anything else is, in effect, a stolen concept.

Since you have already concluded that it is irrelevant, then it would seem that you have already validated the relevant information to your satisfaction. Living entities, by Miss Rand's definition are not endowed with rights, carte blanche. Only a particular type of living entity has rights. The right to life is a right to a process of self-preservation. The right to life is does not apply to parts of the individual, there are, as Leonard Peikoff writes:

You might consider asking yourself the question, can a fetus exist and thrive outside of the womb, by providing it the same care as a newborn baby, ie. breastmilk, or formula. Objectivism, to my knowledge, does not advocate abortion as an ongoing method of birth control. Yet, it does advocate the rights of the living over the considerations of the unborn.

Because there is only one fundamental alternative to life. A validation in the form of sense perception.

From Wikipedia: The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters(Spanish:El sueño de la razón produce monstruos') is an etching made by the Spanish painter and printmaker Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes. Etched between 1797–1799,[1] it is plate 43 of the 80 etchings comprising the Los Caprichos series and was initially intended to be the frontispiece.[2] It consists of a self-portrait of the artist with his head on a table, as owls and bats surround him, assailing him as he buries his head into his arms.[3] Seemingly poised to attack the artist are owls (symbols of folly) and bats (symbols of ignorance). It would seem that owls, as a symbol of wisdom, is a rather recent phenomena. A bust of Ayn Rand would be fitting.

From ITOE pg. 55 Existence, identity and consciousness are concepts in that they require identification in conceptual form. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they are perceived or experienced directly, but grasped conceptually. From ITOE pg. 85 An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is perceived or experienced directly, but [grasped conceptually]. From ITOE pg. 99 Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities. The initial similarities, on the basis of which certain concretes were isolated and conceptually integrated, were [grasped by a process of observation]; all subsequently discovered characteristics of these concretes are discovered by the same method (no matter how complex the inductive procedures involved may become). The axiomatic concepts are perceived or experienced directly, but have to be grasped conceptually. Other concepts are perceived or experienced directly, but they are also grasped via the process of observation. If there are any other axiomatic concepts, the precidence suggests that they would have to be grasped conceptually as well. The key to identifying it as axiomatic is it being something which is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge.

I think I understand what you are implying here. Unless the narrowed usage in physics is legitimate, then like the term "selfish" it may be misused. Peikoff makes use of it when he states on page 16: The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary. Here again, the concept "universe" could be replaced with "existence" without really changing the point as I read it. Of course when my co-worker got to this passage today, he said that Peikoff just applied eternal to the universe without validating it. Well, he is validating Objectivist principles as he comes up to them, not every term he introduces in the book. I think the next sub-heading will make or break this approach. Up and till now, it has been read, acknowledged, tacitly agreed to with relatively few diversions. Between 'The Primacy of Existence Section' and the 'Metaphysically Given as Absolute' should commit his interest to the study, or reveal his commitment to the "fallacy of rewriting reality".

Also, toward the end of page 89, coming up on page 90 in OPAR, may be the assertion on the "problem of universals" you are looking for.

Can you even state your metaphysical position? Can you even state, what, if any, are your philosophical axioms, or their corollaries? You haven't demonstrated your ability to validate relatively simple concepts, - rather than validate, you insist on the negation of having your invalid concept invalidated. The onus of proof lay on he who asserts the positive. If you don't appreciate that. Tough.

Your usage of proof is ambiguous at best as it lacks integration with the ablity to perform the intermediate process of validation. This would be the primary need for the recommended procedure(s) listed earlier it this thread. If you want to fantasize about gods, ghosts, angels, demons and whatnot, that is entirely up to you. There are plenty of websites and forums devoted to such nonsense, please feel free to frequent them.

Can you see hydrogen? Can you see oxygen? It would be more accurate to say that you are not able to comprehend what you are reading and integrate it with the rest of your observations of the world about you. The only place that contradictions can exist is in the epistemological department (the mind). You might consider hiring an epistemological housekeeper for a thorough epistemological housecleaning.

That was in response to your declaration that 'god' exists. The examples given were means of validating actual existent objects. The contrast with 'justice' (which Greebo pointed out had already been linked to) was to illustrate the method for validating abstractions from abstractions, to validate aspects of reality that are not entities, but attributes, relationships, methods etc, which ultimately relate to entities (the perceptual level). Leonard Peikoff validates existence, consciousness, identity, causality, primacy of existence, metaphysical absolute, and sense perception, laying the ground work for the validation of volition. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a step by step validation of the foundations and principles including an introduction to validation of concepts using the concept of "friend". If you are as interested as you indicate verbally, that would be a book to acquire and ask yourself at the end of each sentence, paragraph and chapter - Is this valid? Is this true? If so, why? If not, why not?

If the determnist viewpoint is accepted, how could knowledge of anything, including free-will, be evaluated as true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong? After all, whatever has been 'determined' is 'destined' to be.

This essentially outlines the determinist viewpoint, which both Objectivism (as I understand it) and I reject out of hand. Dante is addressing 'stasis vs. flux' as the natural/necessary state of existence, if I understand his post correctly.

Here's a couple of relatively simple ones. I cannot directly perceive hydrogen or oxygen. I am cognizant that hydrogen and oxygen exist. By subjecting water to an electric current with the necessary equipment, oxygen and hydrogen can be accumulated and correlate with the properties that have been validated to identify that it is hydrogen and oxygen that has been collected. Mixing the two gasses together, and introducing a spark to the mixture, the two gasses chemically combine to form water once again. I cannot directly perceive another galaxies. I am cognizant that other galaxies exist. By aligning lenses which have been demonstrated to magnify objects directly available to my senses, telescopes have been constructed that allow us to magnify our view in such a way to observe Jupiter, Saturn and other celestial objects. By constructing a larger telescope and positioning it out in space we have been able to capture images of other galaxies. If something exists, it can be demonstrated, incontrovertibly.

No. Validation is the method of reducing a concept a step by step identification of the material (lower level concept) that an abstraction is based upon, back to the perceptual level (first level concepts). Validation is relating the concept to existence. You are stating that God exists. Why are you having so much difficulty validating this position? There are a couple of concepts that have been validated for you earlier in this thread. There has been a request laid on the table for you to validate the concept of 'justice'. It appears that the issue lies in either your lack of ability to validate a concept as such, or no desire to share your process of validation of the concept with us. Offering us your 'reasons' is not validation. Your 'reasons' require validation as well. "To validate concepts is to validate reason. To understand concepts is to understand reason." Dr. Binswanger from Abstractions from Abstractions.

Leondard Peikoff validates existence, consciousness and identity in OPAR. The validation is sense perception. Ayn Rand identifies that there is no proof for existence save via non-existence, consciousness save non-consciousness, identity save non-identity. Ayn Rands passage is not a proof that existence, consciousness and identity are true (note: they are just valid and validated) but that it is proof they are axioms, they need to be referenced in any attempt to prove anything. They are at the base of conceptual knowledge. After developing causality as a corollary of existence - again, a self-evident via perception development of the existence axiom - he points out that consciousness as such, or by the mere power of consciousness, has no power or influence on existence. It is by such that one validates the 'primacy of existence'. By what standard is this taken as an assumption? I think it was Plasmatic that pointed out he is not opposed to existence and life per se as being eternal. I would concur with that assessment. The primacy of existence identifies that consciousness cannot preceed existence. Objectivism is the consistant application of this principle (primacy of existence) from the perceptual level (first level) concepts and any abstractions that are abstracted from these abstractions. Reducing a concept is the step by step identification of the material (lower level concept) that an abstraction is based upon, back to the perceptual level (first level concepts). Thus, to validate concepts is to validate reason. edited to add: (primacy of existence) after 'application of this principle'.

You have been requested to validate the concept of 'god' - not give your reasons for believing a 'god'. There is a difference. You have repeatedly brushed off this request. Eioul contrasted the concept 'justice' with the 'god' pointing out that neither can be observed by direct perception and that objectivist do not disregard 'justice' as being an 'invalid concept' (a concept which cannot be validated). Yet, you presented a sentence, in which I replaced 'leprechaun' with 'god' and 'missing clothes' with 'existence' and yet it was my presentation that is considered rude? You offer 'reason'. To validate concepts is to validate reason. If you want to know if your 'reasoning' is valid, then it is the concepts you form your 'reasoning' from that must be validated.

Yes, the claim is arbitrary because you have no reason at all to believe that 'gods' are responsible for existence. All you know is that existence exists, but this in no way (either empirically or logically) lead to the necessity of theorizing 'gods'. "To validate concepts is to validate reason. To understand concepts is to understand reason." Binswanger from Abstractions from Abstractions.

I believe 'creation' was identified as having been 'stolen'.

That would expand what I was thinking. Yet, even describing something between attributes and or relationships, the connection to the entity still exists. At the risk of being myopic on the subject, as you bring up later, Laws of Nature seem to identify (a) causal relationship(s) of one or more existents. Note: Existent does include attributes, relationships, concepts and other non-tangibles. Isn't this redundant. Law of Nature - Nature is Actual. How would a law of nature apply to something only imagined? Are there Laws of nature that is are not an identification of a causal relation? Was this thread isolated from another? The heading and the quest seem a little disjointed.

A law of nature identifies a causal relationship of one or more existents. Actual(?) if it is not actual, can it be described? Are all laws of nature expressed in a single proposition? Identifies describes what the discription is trying to accomplish. Are you trying to reduce law of nature or define it? This might serve as a more poignent starting point.

Can reality conform to Hollywood? Can Hollywood conform to reality? It leaped out in my mind as if reality was the conformer. I think it still keeps the essense of what you mean.

In an unexpected turn of events, I challenged my co-worker to go through either OPAR, or ITOE with me. This is day 2. Day one, I stopped just before the line congratulating the reader on grasping the first axiom. dream_weaver: I tossed your natural law question out to the wolves last night. Given the breadth and scope of the concept 'existence' and 'existent' natural law is subsumed therein. dream_weaver: More on that should be touched on in Chapter 2, if you manage to survive Chapter 1. He will address briefly, infinity, God, and eternity in Chapter 1. co-worker:: reluctantly, and for the time being, I will accept that they may be existents. My problem with this is that you cannot have this 'universe' without these laws existing, or being in place, prior. And prior is where I have a problem with because then we are saying that the framework of the universe (the beginning) is only when these laws come into effect. dream_weaver: It is a common objection. Much of mankind has struggled over the centuries to address that issue. We have existence, and by extention, this universe - if by universe we are including everything that exists. Existence and Universe in this context are interchangable. co-worker:: I agree with one adjustment - I would say we have this universe, and by extention, existence. OK dream_weaver: In that I just pointed out the concepts are interchangeable, it is essentially the same statement. So far, per your answers last night, you do not detect the brainwashing, or a need to accept anything presented so far on faith? co-worker:: So far, no. dream_weaver: Shall we continue, or have you had all you can take? co-worker:: dream_weaver, we've had deeper discussions on food. This is cake so far. Please continue. dream_weaver: (more OPAR) " There is something-of which I am aware" is: "There is something- of which I am aware." co-worker:: An important note about concsciousness, and one that we've talked about before; Either Conciousness A.) always existed, B.) was designed, C.) it invented itself, or D.) it's 'rules' existed prior and it came about by causality. dream_weaver: Does he state that it has existed or not existed here? Does he state that it is or is not designed here? Does he state that it invented itself? Does he state how it comes about? The closest he comes to any of those is in stating that Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existences as such. He does state that it is necessary for you to grasp existence. co-worker:: no, no, no, no OK dream_weaver: The fact of consciousness is also a fundamental starting point. Even if biologists or physicists were someday to give us a scientific analysis of the conditions of consciousness (in terms of physical structures or energy quanta or something now unknown), this would not alter the fact that consciousness is an axiom. Before one can raise any questions pertaining to knowledge, whether of content or of method (including the question of the conditions of consciousness), one must first be conscious of something and recognize that one is. All questions presuppose that one has a faculty of knowledge, i.e., the attribute of consciousness. One ignorant of this attribute must perforce be ignorant of the whole field of cognition (and of philosophy). co-worker:: Per my note above, which you apparently disliked because he did not state any of it, I do not agree that it is a starting point. A starting point for what? If you mean starting point because you cannot ask about consciousness unless you are already conscious, that's a silly as saying that eyes are an axiom because I can see. It's a given. dream_weaver: Hence the designation 'axiom'. Given. Datum, if you will. co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: It may seem silly, and there are many who do not express it explicitly this way. co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: Long quote. I'll take it paragraph by paragraph and let you know when we return to Peikoff. (more OPAR) dream_weaver: And eyes would have a hard time qualifying as an axiom, as they are sensory apparatii of consciousness. Consciousness is more fundamental. You can be aware of an eye, can an eye be aware of anything? Oh look honey. There is an eye on the table. It is looking at me. Make it stop. Please? co-worker:: If you were deaf and blind, how much are you aware of? dream_weaver: The Helen Kellar story. co-worker:: What did Helen Keller say when she fell off a cliff? dream_weaver: The point is you are aware. Those who are not aware, we usually stick in a box and stick the box in the ground. Did she say something? co-worker:: A) nothing, she screamed her mittens off though. OK dream_weaver: If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. co-worker:: If that which I claim to perceive does not exist, then what is it if not consciousness? dream_weaver: If you claim to perceive something that does not exist, and insist that that is also conscious, I would have to say hello to your imaginary friend as I walk you to the nuthouse. co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: (resuming OPAR) dream_weaver: Erudition: Profound scholarly knowledge. co-worker:: OK BUT, this is axiom ONLY applies to the individual. dream_weaver: It is only individuals that are capable of grasping axioms? Long pause. dream_weaver: I am not quite sure what you are stating in your comment: BUT, this is axiom ONLY applies to the individual. co-worker:: Not sure. We can move on. dream_weaver: Are you sure you did not peek ahead. Irony, that until you mentioned 'natural law' - I had not noticed it comes up as an example later in this chapter. co-worker:: Nope, the 'natural law' was, well, natural. There's something about this that does not sit well with me but I can't express it. Can you have a universe without existence? dream_weaver: Two questions: What is the universe - What is existence. The universe is everything that exists. Existence is everything that exists. The universe is existence. Existence is the universe. Or in your words followed by my earlier words: This makes me wonder if I am conflating the term, or trying to merge two different concepts sloppily together, rather than two different words for a very similar concept in this context. I was struck by the coincident timing here as it was asked just prior to the paragraph addressing existence and identity. co-worker:: Agreed. OK dream_weaver: Funny you should ask. "Why, one might ask, use two concepts to identify one fact? " . . . (more OPAR) co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: (more OPAR) "Thus the context and purpose of the two concepts differ, although the fact both concepts name is indivisible." co-worker:: agreed. OK dream_weaver: You keep up this agreement too much longer, and we will be calling you the big 'O'. dream_weaver: "An axiomatic concept, writes Ayn Rand, is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.(8)" Another ITOE quote. co-worker:: BEEP! BEEP! Problem. This is where we shall begin to disagree. OK dream_weaver: Shall I guess at what you find problematic with this? You think that because the universe is comprised of different entities, that it can be broken down and analysed. We have chit chatted over a year. Before the BEEP BEEP, I was looking at the wording, and thought this would be where an issue might arise. I guessed at what it might be, but in the following, it appears to be P.o.E. vs P.o.C. or Primacy issue. co-worker:: Close. Saying the axioms (existence, consciousness and ultimately Identity) are not reduceable, or exempt from proof or explanation, is like my analogy of sitting down to a board game after it already began. The Rules are already in place for the game to operate. The game being existence (the universe). Does the next paragraph tie into this as well? If so, post it as it may shed more light. dream_weaver: Ah. Ok. Yes - you are anticipating the primacy of existence (which is still several pages out.). The next paragraph may help. If not, I may need to run it past a couple of people who have a better grasp of some of this material than I. Axiomatic concepts are not subject to the process of definition. Their referents can be specified only ostensively, by <opar_8> pointing to instances. Everything to be grasped about these facts is implicit in any act of adult cognition; indeed, it is implicit much earlier. "After the first discriminated sensation (or percept)," Miss Rand observes, "man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms 'existence,' 'identity,' 'consciousness.' ..." dream_weaver: Ostensively: of, relating to, or constituting definition by exemplifying the thing or quality being defined Or in otherwords by pointing. co-worker:: dream_weaver, I don't think you give yourself enough respect. I doubt there are too many people, short of the top guys, who have a better grasp on this. Maybe they use fancier words (possibly doubtable too) or can put it into words, but not grasping. OK dream_weaver: Thanks. Yet I understand where my main weakness is, and even now, struggle to turn that into a stronger asset as I move forward in my quest for knowledge. Peikoff in his lecture points out that it is possible to approach Objectivism as a rationalist. Memorizing passages, definitions, key concepts etc. His challenge is to 'induce' Objectivism. Well, if the shoe fits, then perhaps you may need some shoe polish. dream_weaver: (more OPAR) co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: Is this helping, or generating a larger rift? co-worker:: Just giving me better understanding. I'm actually quite impressed as to how much I know of O'ism already. I do agree with most of it, but don't worry, we'll have plenty to go (back) over. dream_weaver: (more OPAR) dream_weaver: Two more paragraphs would make a good stopping point. co-worker:: Same problems with me here. OK dream_weaver: (more OPAR) co-worker:: OK dream_weaver: What is true of tomatoes applies equally to oranges, buildings, people, music, and stars. What philosophy does is to give an abstract statement of such self-evident facts. Philosophy states these facts in universal form. Whatever exists, exists. Whatever exists is what it is. In whatever form one is aware, one is aware. Why am I doing this? Well, we work together, he is a pretty bright guy, an inquisitive mind. Since I cannot see his thought processes as he reads this, my only feedback is an OK, next paragraph - or sometimes an Agreed - and an occasional question to provide the insight. Am I wasting my time? Can all experience be beneficial? Most of our conversations end up back in chapter one, reality, - mostly to an objection to a question about the big bang and the 'beginning' of the universe - or comes back via trying to 'rewrite' reality fallacy. If he honestly does not want to tamper with some sacred cow he harbors, then so be it. But if you want to challenge understanding and confuse it with faith, and disregard proof, because you 'feel' something is not quite right - well, maybe this is just a 'Put up, or Shut up.'